Baulderstone Hornibrook Engineering Pty Limited v Gordian Runoff Limited (formerly GIO Insurance Limited) & Ors [2006] NSWSC 583

Baulderstone Hornibrook Engineering Pty Limited v Gordian Runoff Limited (formerly GIO Insurance Limited) & Ors [2006] NSWSC 583

BHE's conduct in instructing its expert, Professor Ingold, to proceed on assumptions known to be false and failing to provide material information constituted relevant delinquency justifying an order for indemnity costs on that proportion of the costs referable to such conduct. Additional delinquency was found in BHE's conduct regarding the corrosion issues, justifying further indemnity costs. The Court held that the separate representation by Gordian and CGU was justified due to genuinely separate issues and no excessive duplication occurred. BHE's rejection of Calderbank offers was not found unreasonable in the circumstances. As to AMPG, BHE's claim had no real prospect of success,...

Parties
Plaintiff: Baulderstone Hornibrook Engineering Pty Limited; First Defendant: Gordian Runoff Limited (formerly GIO Insurance Limited); Third Defendant: CGU Insurance Limited; Eleventh Defendant: AMP General Insurance Limited; Other Party: SACL
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
19 June 2006
Procedural Posture
Costs Application Following Substantive Judgment / Post Judgment; Costs Determination
Outcome
Disparate indemnity costs orders made as between defendants.
Legal Topics
Costs, Indemnity Costs, Calderbank Offers, Expert Evidence, Apportionment of Costs
Civil Procedure Insurance Law Costs Indemnity Costs Calderbank Offers Expert Evidence Apportionment of Costs

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 4 Authorities cited 36 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Baulderstone Hornibrook Engineering Pty Limited

Plaintiff

Gordian Runoff Limited (formerly GIO Insurance Limited)

First Defendant

CGU Insurance Limited

Third Defendant

AMP General Insurance Limited

Eleventh Defendant

SACL

Other Party

Procedural Posture

Costs Application Following Substantive Judgment / Post Judgment; Costs Determination

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether indemnity costs should be ordered against the plaintiff in favour of the various defendants
  2. 2 Whether party/party or apportioned costs orders should be made
  3. 3 Whether separate representation by insurers was justified and whether costs should be reduced for duplication

Ratio Decidendi

BHE's conduct in instructing its expert, Professor Ingold, to proceed on assumptions known to be false and failing to provide material information constituted relevant delinquency justifying an order for indemnity costs on that proportion of the costs referable to such conduct. Additional delinquency was found in BHE's conduct regarding the corrosion issues, justifying further indemnity costs. The Court held that the separate representation by Gordian and CGU was justified due to genuinely separate issues and no excessive duplication occurred. BHE's rejection of Calderbank offers was not found unreasonable in the circumstances. As to AMPG, BHE's claim had no real prospect of success,...

Court Disposition

Disparate indemnity costs orders made as between defendants.

Orders

  • BHE to pay 30% of Gordian's costs on an indemnity basis and 70% on a party/party basis, with interest from payment dates.
  • BHE to pay 30% of CGU's costs on an indemnity basis and 70% on a party/party basis, with interest from payment dates.